Read, don't just listen to what they say, because
that will change. I leave items here long after they fade into the past,
just so I don't have to say "I told you so!", but you can say "You said
that!", be it an accurate prediction, or dead wrong.
Republicans are again calling any increase in taxes paid by the wealthy
class warfare. Warren Buffett says 30% is fair so his secretary would
not pay a higher rate than he. Financial terminology suggests what the
problem is: Capital gains, known as Unearned Income, is taxed at 15%, a
rate lower than for earned income, with the claim that is needed to get
investment in business. The very rich will not allow their millions to
inflate away, but will invest to try to grow their money faster than
inflation. Fairness says EARNED Income should be taxed at the lower, or
same rate as Unearned Income, and the rich will still profit from
investment. After all, the Capital Gains are the result of the work of
those who get Earned Income for doing something. The deficit will be
reduced by increased economic activity, not by cutting out supports
Republicans want to simply cut, harming the least able to deal with
economic grief to give benefits to the rich. Social Security is intended
to be solvent, but they have used SS taxes to fund the government. It
should be a separate fund, not part of the general fund, and decisions
for SS should be JUST SS. Using my SS taxes to give oil companies a tax
break when they have record profits is not acceptable. Business with
the very rich have profited from the war (kept out of the budget by
Republicans under Bush), the real estate bubble with fraudulent
mortgages, and fraudulent markets with banks and hedge funds unregulated
due to Republican objections to restricting them to legal transactions.
None dare call that treason, although it harmed the nation and world
economy. With Social Security removed from the
fray, the military expenditures, more than double the rest of the world
combined, will look a lot more dangerous to the US than any NGO. They
are terrified of a truly business like approach, which would get funding
from the most lucrative sources and aim expenditures where the greatest
return on investment is available and most vulnerable parts needing
The surprise of finding Ossama in a luxury compound in the military
garrison town of Abbottabad, possibly for five to six years, near
the capital does not surprise me. "Keep your enemies closer" applies
here, for a high security facility amid others by some rich guy does
not stick out that much, and there was doubt that the US would touch
a Pakistani military town, or that close to the capital. As well as
a belief that Pakistani operation would be known, with a credible
identity, it suggests it was the safest place, under the nose of the
military. In a poorer area, or more civilian area, it would have stuck
out, an inverted prison. Maybe you really want to know who your
neighbor really, really is!
Those that say the government should be run like we must run our own
budget better use a mirror- it has. With Americans owing an average
of $8000.00 in credit card debt on top of a mortgage and a second, we
do not manage money well. The loan shark is next.
The Republicans are demanding budget cuts, saying the national debit
is too big. They insisted the tax cut be extended for the very richest.
They prohibit medicare from negotiating with pharmaceutical companies.
They refuse to cut subsidies for agribusiness to not grow crops while
food prices rise. They refuse to eliminate subsidies and tax breaks for
oil companies enjoying record profits. They tried to spend money on the
Pentagon on items that it did not want.
Instead, Republicans cut spending on infrastructure, education, health,
and welfare. Headlines demonstrate we are aware infrastructure maintenance
has been deferred too long to the point of failure, we lag in education
when we need to lead, health is defense of the public, and many suffer
economic disaster due to the malfeasance of Wall Street corporations which
have been rescued by the public funds.
Republicans want to cut Social Security and Medicare which receive funding
from worker's pay checks to pay for their priorities in the military,
corporations, and the very rich. With 90% of the wealth in the hands of
2%, the defense expenditures are predominantly protecting the few at the
expense of the many.
A modest proposal:
Solve the illegal immigration and the budget problems by enforcing
the law. Deport every illegal immigrant and prosecute the employer,
imposing the $10,000.00 fine for each. The jobs thus made available
would eliminate the unemployment problem, the fines would cover the
budget, and the market efficiency would eliminate inefficient companies
that can not operate without illegals by bankruptcy.
We are having quite a time with religious extermists, ranging from
Ossama bin Laden to Terry Jones. Both enrich themselves by enlisting
religious hatreds, trying to force their will on others. They do
violence to people and their claimed religion. Why are the three
peoples "of the book" responsible for more killing, especially of
each other, in violation of their claimed belief, than other religions?
We have two Republican ex-CEOs running for office that are yelling "JOBS!"
who were responsible for shipping jobs abroad. The notion that executives
that were fired by their boards are the best for the state of California
is less than reasonable. I wish imprisonment were an available recourse
"truth in advertizing" violations. Meg Whitman has
demonstrated the most remarkable disregard for the truth, government,
and liable and slander laws. Factcheck.org
should be checked for everything she says.
God and Country
Any surprise here? "God and country" invoked against the "God and country"
of a soldier called a "camel jockey", and then sending him to help in a
war some of his brother soldiers say is against "towel head Muslims". When
he finds his reports of what he believes are war crimes, and exhibitions
of prejudice against Muslims are ignored, military justice is compromised.
This is what I call an obvious problem.
"He had not done anything in the first 11 days!" How about ordering the
closure of Gitmo, ordering the closure the secret CIA prisons, and ending
torture, and reversing the entire course of the Super Power's foreign
policy to CO-operation instead of edict and demand? Who do you help,
the tough guy that says do it or else, or the guy that asks for and
offers help? "Can I help you push your car into your driveway to fix it?"
or "GET THAT HEAP out from in front of my house OR ELSE?" Who starts a
fight, who avoids one?
Endangering National Security
We hear claims that we should not investigate the interrogations
by the CIA because we will "Endanger National Security" and they
were just following orders. In the Nuremberg trials we prosecuted
those who "just followed orders" and those who gave those orders,
and imprisoned them.
While the case of Phillip Garrido, Jaycee Dugard's captor, has
led to clamors for greater prison terms and greater restrictions,
it truly reinforces my call all along for a more intelligent
approach. Realistic parole monitoring would have caught this act,
and can mean a safer society with less imprisonment. If the
parole officer's case load allows and requires adequate
supervision, we pay less for prison and we get tax payers with
a chance and vested interest in keeping a job and not re-offending.
We deny the truth in our own lives, for most teenagers have tried
shoplifting, but most grow up to be useful citizens without very
long prison terms, and pay for the prisons. The broad brush could
prove much more destructive, for in truth, isn't EVERY John a violator
of our sex laws, and therefore a sex offender to be kept 2500 feet
from any school? Is hitting a hooker the same as raping a child?
Kenny MacAskill freed Abdel Basset al-Megrahi on compassionate
grounds because he is dying of prostate cancer. Conservative
Christians in the U.S. have berated him for an act that Jesus
exemplified. He has single handedly saved the Scottish government the
cost of cancer treatment, prevented claims of martyrdom, and
shown a true christian value inviting a less contentious view
of the developed countries.
The argument that raising the gas tax will make it impossible for
people to drive is false. The proposed increase to $0.28 from $0.18
is less than the oil companies raised the price in a week, even when
the cost of oil is dropping. The percentage of the price is less than
a decade ago. Raising the tax to 20% would not raise the price of gas
according to the free market theory, since the oil companies charge
what the market will bare. The difference would be that more money
would be available to repair roads, and raising prices would not be
as profitable since reduced demand would offset the profit sooner.
Why shouldn't the public benifit, since public roads make the market?
For the past administration money has ruled. Oil companies were
allowed to raise the price of gasoline from a dollar a gallon to over
four times that while the price of oil did not quadruple and other
expenses did not rise. Bank CEOs, who's job is to guide and protect
their companies, allowed and encouraged liar's loans (only criminals
have a stong reason to avoid proper documentation) and hid toxic assets
to sell them to the world, but were rewarded with millions. The rich
seem to believe "steal a grand and go to prison", steal a million and it
is OK. Damaging the world economy is Not a crime?
The pro prop 8 ads tried to raise the specter of kids being taught there
is such a thing as same sex marriage, their religious freedom endangered,
and churches might loose their tax exemptions. Did the Later Day Saints
note that the Bush administration tried to eliminate the tax exemption
of a church that preached against an aggressive war as being politicly
active, and we now know the LDS took an active role in raising a major
portion ($12 million+) of the pro 8 war chest?
George W. Bush seems to think that being "saved" means he can do as he
damn well pleases without any consequences. This was NOT founded as a
Christian nation (see Treaty of Tripoli) and he hates and wishes to
kill Muslems, in conflict with Christ's Sermon on the Mount admonishing
followers to love their neighbors and enemies (Matthew 5:34-44). If impeachment
(without conviction) was appropriate for Clinton, what is appropriate
for a man that violates the constitution and his oath to defend it,
lies to the American people, congress, engages in an
unnecessary war killing mostly innocent people, and eliminates a
court decided penalty for a crony (in a crime his administration is
implicated in)? I think he needs to get born again...
Copyright © 2009 Norman Montgomery;
All rights reserved.